crm_plan_domain_intelligence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already expose destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds useful context about dispatcher routing and identity scope, but does not clarify the nature of the destructive behavior, side effects, or what outcome to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: an action statement, a one-sentence routing note, and a short Args list. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the first sentence somewhat restates the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the two parameters are optional and simple, the basic call shape is covered. But the description omits what the action actually does, when to invoke it, and what destructive side effects to watch for, making it only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does partially: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, 'structured inputs' is under-specified—no accepted shape, keys, or examples are given—so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Run the crm domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`') and adds routing context under JWT/tenant/company scope, which positions it within the crm domain. However, it never explains what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually accomplishes or how it differs from nearby crm planning tools like crm_agentic_plan or crm_plan_sequence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent, crm_agentic_plan, or crm_chat. The description only states routing mechanics, not selection criteria, exclusions, or preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.